In this third part, I bring the experts visions about BRICS as a geopolitical actor and the future of the bloc. BRICS can become one of the most efficient mechanisms that the rising Global South has within its reach to make its voice listened to in future discussions on the new world order, but it requires enhanced institutionalization, asserts a Russian expert.
Strategic Autonomy Versus Alliance Politics
India’s approach exemplifies sophisticated hedging strategies. Despite the “post-Galwan shift in India’s China policy” marked by “hedging, hard balancing, and a turn to minilateral forums like Quad and I2U2,” India maintains BRICS engagement. Khan explains this as preserving “space to push back, influence agenda-setting, and refuse ideological capture.” The strategy reflects India’s identity as “non-Western, but not anti-West,” keeping diplomatic options open while preventing China from dominating BRICS narratives.
From Pakistan, strategic analyst Naik Wazir sees BRICS as “a modern version of the Non-Aligned Movement” where “members emphasize national sovereignty and multilateral cooperation.” This perspective suggests BRICS’ appeal lies not in rigid alliance structures but in providing platforms for diverse countries to advance national interests while maintaining flexibility.
Multipolarity Versus Bipolarity: The Critical Choice
Perhaps no question proves more consequential for global order than whether BRICS contributes to genuine multipolarity or evolves into a competing pole resembling Cold War divisions. A Moroccan analyst frames this as requiring “necessary clarity” about BRICS’ strategic direction, particularly regarding India’s position.
This expert argues that “India, the next chairman of the BRICS, must clearly decide on its strategic position: either to be an important vassal of the West or to build independence with the BRICS and overcome its lack of trust in China and Russia.” He suggests that without this clarity, BRICS risks creating “a unipolar or bipolar world” rather than genuine multipolarity.
Turkish journalist and analyst Celal Çetin provides a different perspective, arguing that BRICS “contributes to a multipolar world order” while simultaneously “turning into a competing pole similar to Cold War-style divisions.” He observes that even Europe’s integration project “has not been able to fully establish ‘common consciousness’ for decades,” suggesting the difficulty of creating coherent bloc politics among historically diverse nations.
A UK analyst offers a more optimistic assessment, arguing that BRICS “strongly contributes to the emergence of a multipolar world order rather than evolving into a Cold War-style pole.” He emphasizes that BRICS “does not possess the cohesive ideological unity required for bipolarity” and lacks the confrontational character of Cold War rivalries.
China’s Growing Influence and Internal Tensions
A critical factor shaping BRICS’ future involves managing China’s economic dominance within the bloc. Turkish analyst Çetin notes that “China’s huge economy is larger than the economies of all other BRICS countries combined,” with China’s economic output “approximately fourteen times larger than that of South Africa and five to eight times larger than the economies of India, Russia and Brazil.”
This asymmetry creates what Iranian expert Amir Maghdoor Mashhood describes as risks that “BRICS becomes a vehicle for Chinese geopolitical and economic expansion, undermining its broader multilateral promise.” Multiple analysts express concerns about “China dependency problems” where countries risk becoming “reliant on China, reinforcing a two-tiered structure: China as the anchor, others as dependents.”
Russian expert Kortunov acknowledges these tensions while arguing that BRICS’ diversity prevents Chinese domination: “There is no such a leader and such a hierarchy within BRICS, neither China, nor Russia, nor any other group member can impose its will or its agenda on the rest of the group.” However, economic realities suggest this formal equality may not reflect actual influence patterns.
Internal Contradictions and Expansion Challenges
BRICS faces significant internal contradictions that complicate its evolution. Indian analyst Gupta identifies “deep heterogeneity and conflicting agendas” where “BRICS spans liberal democracies (India, Brazil, South Africa) and authoritarian states (China, Russia), each with divergent economic cycles.” He notes that “Russia’s actions in Ukraine and China’s South China Sea assertiveness strain intra-bloc trust, making unanimous positions on security and trade difficult.”
The expansion process adds complexity. Algerian analyst Fess observes that “the controversial inclusion of highly indebted or low-performing economies like Egypt or Argentina” raises questions about BRICS’ “reformist credibility.” [I note that Argentina was invited to be a member at the end of Alberto Fernández administration, but Javier Milei did not accept it].
Pakistani expert Khalid Mahmood notes that “India is a founding BRICS member and has significant clout in the group. Ongoing Pakistan-India tensions limit the possibility of Pakistan joining BRICS in the near future.”
Russian expert Toloraya provides insight into expansion dynamics, noting that “current member state approaches to the enlargement issue are more or less uniform; a pause is needed, or BRICS activities will become chaotic.” The challenge involves balancing inclusive expansion with institutional effectiveness.
Long-term Visions: Convergence and Divergence
Expert visions for BRICS’ future reveal both shared aspirations and fundamental disagreements about the bloc’s trajectory. Brazilian expert Claudya Piazera envisions BRICS evolving “into a proactive architect of a global green transition, regenerative growth, and Inclusive Finance for all,” emphasizing sustainable development priorities.
Indian experts present more cautious optimism. Khan argues that “the long-term future of BRICS depends on its ability to deliver—not just declare,” emphasizing the need for concrete outcomes rather than rhetorical commitments. Gupta similarly stresses that BRICS must avoid becoming “an echo chamber of high-level summits without policy outcomes.”
From the UAE, Dr. Alexander advocates for BRICS becoming “a platform for pragmatic multilateralism, rather than an anti-Western alliance,” focusing on development finance, digital cooperation, and South-South diplomacy while avoiding “ideologically rigid bloc” behavior.
Russian perspectives emphasize institutional development. Kortunov argues that BRICS can become “one of the most efficient mechanisms that the rising Global South has within its reach to make its voice listened to in future discussions on the new world order,” but requires enhanced institutionalization and focus on specific problems.
Conclusions: Expectations, Realities, and Future Trajectories
The comprehensive expert analysis reveals BRICS facing fundamental choices about its identity, institutional development, and global role. Several key patterns emerge from the diverse perspectives examined.
Commonalities Across Perspectives: Despite geographical and ideological diversity, experts share several common observations. First, BRICS represents a genuine alternative to Western-dominated institutions, offering developing nations increased agency in global governance. Second, the bloc’s economic significance continues growing, creating real opportunities for trade diversification and alternative financing. Third, BRICS faces serious internal contradictions—particularly China’s dominance and divergent political systems—that complicate institutional development.
BRICS Members Versus Outside Observers: A clear pattern distinguishes perspectives from BRICS member states versus external observers. Member state experts generally emphasize opportunities and potential, focusing on concrete benefits like trade growth, infrastructure financing, and diplomatic leverage. Indian experts highlight strategic autonomy benefits while acknowledging Chinese dominance concerns. Russian analysts emphasize BRICS’ role in challenging Western hegemony while recognizing institutional limitations. UAE expert stresses balancing strategies and diversification opportunities.
Outside observers tend toward more sceptical assessments. European experts focus on economic competition and strategic hedging concerns. Algerian and Pakistani perspectives reveal aspirations for membership coupled with recognition of structural barriers. Moroccan analysis emphasizes the need for clearer strategic direction and questions about sustainability without fundamental financial system challenges.
Increasing Relevance Amid Global Fragmentation: The expert consensus suggests BRICS’ relevance will indeed increase, driven by several factors. Trump’s return to confrontational unilateralism creates space for alternative institutions. The ongoing shift toward multipolarity reduces Western institutional dominance. Growing Global South solidarity around climate, development, and sovereignty issues provides common ground for BRICS cooperation.
However, increased relevance doesn’t guarantee institutional success. As Algerian expert Fess observes, BRICS faces “three key pitfalls: instrumentalization by dominant powers, ambiguity in purpose, and rhetoric without results.” The bloc’s future depends on whether it can overcome internal contradictions to deliver concrete outcomes.
The Decisive Decade Ahead: The next decade will prove decisive for BRICS’ trajectory. Several critical developments will shape its evolution: India’s presidency and strategic choices about balancing Western and BRICS relationships; progress on financial alternatives including de-dollarization initiatives; institutional development of the New Development Bank and Contingent Reserve Arrangement; management of expansion while maintaining coherence; and responses to global crises that test BRICS solidarity.
The expert analysis suggests BRICS will likely evolve into what UAE expert Alexander terms “a platform for pragmatic multilateralism” rather than a rigid anti-Western alliance. Its success will depend on member states’ willingness to prioritize collective interests over narrow national gains, develop effective institutions, and navigate the complex dynamics of an increasingly multipolar world.
As Brazilian expert Piazera concludes, BRICS represents an opportunity to “assert itself as a leader in a multipolar, regenerative future,” but only if it combines “geopolitical ambition with rigorous institutional reform, ensuring transparency, environmental accountability, and trustworthiness on the world stage.”
If BRICS wants credibility in Africa, according to the Kenyan analyst Jasleen Gill, “it must invest in regional stability—joint intelligence on transnational threats, real-time maritime cooperation, and AI and cyber capabilities for local security agencies.”
The Trump administration’s threatening response to BRICS expansion and assertiveness, including higher tariffs on BRICS members and friendly countries, ironically validates the bloc’s growing significance. As Brazilian and South African presidents noted, such threats suggest desperation rather than strength, indicating that BRICS has indeed become too important to ignore. Whether it can translate this significance into effective global influence remains the defining question of the post-Western world order now emerging.
Ricardo Martins ‒PhD in Sociology, specializing in International Relations and Geopolitics
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
